Considering the sun in climate change

There is a lot of debate about the sun’s role in global warming and climate change. Some scientists argue that the sun plays the dominant role, making human activity insignificant.

Much of this argument is based on statistical analysis of very long proxy records. One can see a very good example of this thinking, as well as the debate surrounding it, in a recent article on Judith Curry’s Outstanding “Climate, Etc.” science blog.

The article is titled “Nature Unbound VI Centennial to millennial solar cycles.” In keeping with blog practice, the author is simply Javier. (Who the author is, is generally considered irrelevant.) As the “VI” indicates, this is the sixth in a series of detailed reviews of important aspects of natural variability, all written by Javier.

Curry’s blog is a great place where climate science gets discussed and debated in detail, with all sides well represented. Many of the articles are long and somewhat technical. In fact Climate Etc. is often very much like a scientific journal. The extensive comments are what is called post publication peer review in the journal world.

There are over 850,000 comments to date, many quite technical. This blog may be the best place in the world to see the climate science debate in action. Its educational value is unparalleled.

Most of these articles are what would be called review articles in a journal. Many journals publish review articles and some publish nothing else. These articles attempt to summarize a specific body of research. In this case we have a review of some of the numerous correlations that have been found between very long term climate change and changes in solar activity.

The article is quite long and somewhat technical in places. The starting summary gives the flavor of the piece:

“Summary: Holocene climate has been affected in different periods by several centennial to millennial solar cycles. The ~1000-year Eddy solar cycle seems to have dominated Holocene climate variability between 11,500-4,000 years BP, and in the last two millennia, where it defines the Roman, Medieval, and Modern warm periods. The ~208-year de Vries solar cycle displays strong modulation by the ~2400-year Bray solar cycle, both in its cosmogenic isotope signature and in its climatic effects. The Centennial, and Pentadecadal solar cycles are observable in the last 400-year sunspot record, and they are responsible for the present extended solar minimum that started in 2008.”

The basic problem with the sun-climate connection is our lack of understanding of how it works, even while the evidence for it is quite strong. Javier puts this nicely in the introduction, as follows:

“The study of solar cycles and their climatic effect is hampered by a very short observational record (~400 years), an inadequate understanding of the physical causes that might produce centennial to millennial changes in solar activity, and an inadequate knowledge of how such changes produce their climatic effect. Despite this lack of a solid theoretical framework, paleoclimatologists keep publishing article after article where they report correlations between solar proxy periodicities and climate proxy periodicities, and the observational evidence is now so abundant as to obviate the lack of a theory or well defined mechanism.”

The US Global Change Research Program spends well over $2 billion a year on so-called climate research, but almost none of that is on trying to understand the hugely important sun-climate connection. Instead, the research program assumes that climate change is due to human activity, so it is focused on things like the carbon cycle. This questionable assumption stands out in the USGCRP’s highly alarmist “Climate Science Special Report.”

If the assumption of human causation is false, which seems likely, then the science is misdirected and the money wasted. It is time for the multi-billion dollar USGCRP to focus on understanding the sun-climate connection. We need to see the sun in climate change.

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!

99 Comments

“The study of solar cycles and their climatic effect is hampered by a very short observational record (~400 years)”

That’s not true- Chinese astronomic observations of the solar surface go back millenia , and harvest date tables have been compiled since Sumerian times.

“, an inadequate understanding of the physical causes that might produce centennial to millennial changes in solar activity, and an inadequate knowledge of how such changes produce their climatic effect. Despite this lack of a solid theoretical framework, paleoclimatologists keep publishing article after article where they report correlations between solar proxy periodicities and climate proxy periodicities, and the observational evidence is now so abundant as to obviate the lack of a theory or well defined mechanism.””

That’s the astrophysicists problem, not the palaeoclimatologists- the proxy record speaks for itself, and isotopic temperature proxies are so empirical and reproducible that even Willie Soon goes cherry picking in that abundant scientific orchard.

David Wojick
December 11, 2017 at 1:04 PM

You should go argue with Javier and the others on Climate Etc. I am merely reporting that this debate exists. However, I do not know what you mean when you say that the proxy record speaks for itself. Javier’s piece is based on the proxy record.

But that the USGCRP refuses to fund research on what you call “the astrophysicists problem” is important.

CB
December 13, 2017 at 2:41 PM

“I am merely reporting that this debate exists.”

The debate about the existence of the sun?

Yeah, not really.

This is a propaganda outlet for the fossil fuel industry.

If you are not a prostitute for that industry, why are you posting here instead of a peer-reviewed journal?

“CFACT has received over $4.1 million in funds from Donor’s Trust and Donor’s Capital Fund between 2002-2011, plus an additional $582,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998-2012”

I am posting here because I believe that climate alarmism is as dangerous today as communism was 100 years ago. Peer reviewed journals take a year or more to publish and are controlled by the alarmists. Plus this is an op-ed, not a scientific report. I doubt that you understand the difference.

CB
December 14, 2017 at 1:47 PM

“Peer reviewed journals take a year or more to publish and are controlled by the alarmists.”

…a vast international conspiracy? Hmmmm…

Why would you think there’s no cause for alarm?

If you understand polar ice sheets have never before in Earth’s history been able to withstand CO₂ so high, what makes you think they will today?

Can you think of anything alarming that might happen if all the land ice on Earth were to go into the sea?

“If you understand polar ice sheets have never before in Earth’s history been able to withstand CO₂ so high, what makes you think they will today?”
Come on CB, you are just continuing to troll with debunked nonsense. I’ve shown you that your claim is pure BS. Not only have polar ice sheets withstood CO2 levels higher than today, the Hirnation glaciation was initiated when CO2 levels were 5,000ppm to 6,000ppm, at the end of the Ordovician Period. You surely haven’t forgotten when I exposed your ignorance of carbon isotopes, when you made the silly claim:

CB:“Marine organisms only use ¹³C when ¹²C has been completely used up, and given that ¹²C makes up 99% of the carbon on Earth, this means that CO₂ dropped to 1% of the previous baseline amount, from 5,000PPM to ~50PPM.”“

It’s the Hirnantian glaciation, and the evidence shows CO₂ was quite low at the time.

Is a disqus thread the best evidence you can produce that this is not true, or do you have something slightly more reliable?

“How come a big ice age happened when carbon dioxide levels were high? It’s a question climate sceptics often ask. But sometimes the right answer is the simplest: it turns out CO₂ levels were not that high after all. The Ordovician ice age happened 444 million years ago, and records have suggested that CO₂ levels were relatively high then. But when Seth Young of Indiana University in Bloomington did a detailed analysis of carbon-13 levels in rocks formed at the time, the picture that emerged was very different. Young found CO₂ concentrations were in fact relatively low when the ice age began.”

“It’s the Hirnantian glaciation, and the evidence shows CO₂ was quite low at the time.”
Good for you, you caught a mis-spelling by me. I admit my mistakes. Unfortunately you stubbornly cling to your mistakes, turning them into lies:

There is no empirical evidence showing that CO2was quite low. You tried to argue that a few years ago, and I exposed that you didn’t understand carbon isotopes, https://disqus.com/home/discussion/thedailycaller/excuse_9_nasa_says_pause_in_global_warming_just_a_coincidence/#comment-1277972042 . I challenged you to provide some real empirical data, and you failed to do so. And you tried the same New Science article, which merely claims that CO2 levels were low. As I showed you back then, the Seth Young (2010) actual paper made no statement and presented no evidence of any low pCO2 levels. So the New Science article was misrepresenting Young’s paper. This is the kind of shoddy science done by you climate alarmists, knowingly putting out propaganda in attempt to deny evidence that goes against your climate alarmist dogmas.

Once again, you fail to provide any actual empirical data as evidence for your claimed 50ppm level of CO2. Your claim of 50ppm for millions of years is also nonsensical, since that level of CO2 would cause extinction of plant life.

This is exactly why I stopped replying to you, because you are just trolling, and I don’t continue to feed trolls, although I do sometimes reply to them to expose to others that you don’t know what you are talking about.

CB
December 15, 2017 at 2:31 PM

“physicsforums… geocraft”

…so another public forum and the coal industry.

These are not more reliable sources than what you’ve previously linked to, and in fact, geocraft is far less reliable, having clear connexions to the industry warming the planet.

Very Old One, is there any reason why you cannot find any science to back up your claims?

It’s not because those claims are not true… is it?

“Calculated paleolevels of atmospheric CO2 from the GEOCARB III model, which models the carbon cycle on long time scales (here a 30 million year resolution).”

Wow. You’ve obviously never heard of the old saying “It’s better to remain silent and thought to be a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt”!

” “physicsforums … geocraft” …so another blog and the coal industry”
The quote from physicsforums just documents the fact that you have lied, because: 1) you have continued to intentionally post errors. I have shown you data showing your claim “polar ice sheets have never before in Earth’s history been able to withstand CO₂ levels so high” is false, and you have been unable to post any science to refute me; 2) you continue to cling to your mistakes even after I have pointed them out to you numerous times.
Once again, you have totally destroyed your credibility because you continue to be so dishonest.

And the geocraft link is to a peer reviewed paper providing the CO2 levels during the Hirnantian glaciation that we are discussing. There is no other commentary or discussion there. Your attempt to ignore it by your silly “coal industry” dodge is just stupid, and exposes that you are denying reality because you know it proves you wrong.

“These are not more reliable sources than what you’ve previously linked to, in fact, geocraft is far less reliable, having clear connexions to the industry warming the planet.”
You are just handwaving again to avoid addressing the content of what I posted. And do you even realize how utterly stupid your comment attacking the geocraft link is? The geocraft link is solely to a peer reviewed paper, Berner(2001) ‘Geocarb III: A revised model of atmospheric CO₂ over Phanerozoic time’, which is the paper written using the exact same data that you link to!

“Very Old One, is there any reason why you cannot find any science to back up your claims?”
You are projecting. You are the one who has never been able to find any science to back up your claim:

CB: “What fault do you find with measurements showing CO₂ dropped to almost zero during the Hirnantian?”

And your own link to the Berner geocarb III data backs up my claim and refutes your claim, as the data shows that CO2 levels encompassing the Hirnation glaciation were between 4750ppm and 5005ppm.

Once again, you demonstrate that you don’t have a clue as to what you are talking about, yet you repeat your false claims. Quite pathetic.

David Wojick
December 14, 2017 at 2:37 PM

No conspiracy, CB, just a massive social/political movement. As for the rest, conjectures are just that. There is no evidence that the ice sheets have to “withstand” high CO2 levels, because CO2 does not attack ice sheets. You are simply being alarmist, which is why I use that term.

CB
December 14, 2017 at 3:28 PM

“CO2 does not attack ice sheets.”

…and as has already been pointed out to you, here you’re up against centuries of well-established radiative physics.

“The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century”

climate.nasa.gov/evidence

David Wojick
December 15, 2017 at 1:11 PM

CO2 molecules do not trap heat. They convert absorbed photons into heat which they then share with the surrounding air. They also collect heat from the surrounding air and convert it into emitted photons. Energy in and energy out.

These mechanisms are indeed well understood, but it in no way follows that increasing the trace concentration of CO2 molecules will cause the atmosphere to warm. There are far too many other processes going on, so it is a difficult scientific question. 19th century science does nothing to answer this question.

Thus the climate change debate is not about whether or not CO2 is a GHG. It is about (1) whether or not increased CO2 has caused or will cause significant warming and (2) if so is this dangerous? I think the science is clear that the answer to (1) is no. It follows that (2) does not even arise.

CB
December 15, 2017 at 2:36 PM

“CO2 molecules do not trap heat. They convert absorbed photons into heat which they then share with the surrounding air.”

…and that warm air melts ice. David, are you having difficulty understanding that heat melts ice? Perhaps we’ve uncovered why you haven’t received that Nobel prize yet…

No CB, the difficulty seems to be your understanding what I am saying. If you include the rest of my text in your quote, it negates everything you are saying. But this is how alarmism works. Pull out the bit you like and ignore the rest.

As for you graph, note that there was no warming over this period, except the big El Nino in 2016, when your graph shows ice mass increasing! Plus of course this graph is just a silly guess presented as an established fact. We have no way of knowing about tiny changes in the ice mass of Antarctica, or even what that mass is. How could we?

Getting back to what you clipped, note that CO2 removes heat as well as adding it. The two processes are relatively independent, so in principle increasing CO2 could cause net cooling. In fact some folks argue that this explains stratospheric cooling.

Robert
December 28, 2017 at 1:46 PM

You see the last sentence? “We need to see the sun in climate change.”

And, of course, it is. Chapter 8 and the SPM address the sun’s role.

So, basically, this “op-ed” is another abdication of our responsibility effort.

cshorey
December 11, 2017 at 9:14 PM

Mnestheus, do realize the level of crazy you’re dealing with in David Wojick. His main argument is that we can’t measure global average temperature and he ignores when people tell him we measure temperature anomalies as they are easier to work with. But try to match that idea with this article he’s written when he now praises an anonymous source “Javier” who says there are correlations between solar output and global temperature. David can have everything go his way because he’s lost his objective edge and thus any scientific credibility.

We do have instruments that measure something relatively close to global average atmospheric temperatures, namely the satellites. They tell us that the surface temperature computer models (which are not instruments) are wrong. Nothing crazy about it.

cshorey
December 12, 2017 at 3:00 PM

Satellites measure a voltage. That voltage is interpreted as IR photons hitting the detector. That approximation is then put through a MODEL to get temperature and is getting its photons from the mid troposphere to the upper stratosphere. Orbit and instrument decay must be corrected for (so hard to send people to up check and repair those things, right Dave). The irony is not lost on me that you whine about models, but jump to the first model you think supports your case. You reveal your inability to be unbiased when you get all hot for satellites while throwing away direct temperature measurements.
Again, I bet you can’t measure the average temperature of your body, but you can tell by local temperature anomalies when you have a fever. I have lost all respect for you David. You’re a tired old hack sitting on his CFACT porch yelling at the kids across the street to get off his lawn.

RealOldOne2
December 14, 2017 at 9:35 AM

“Satellites measure a voltage. … while throwing away direct temperature measurements”
Your irrelevant handwaving is duly noted.
According to your logic there are no direct temperature measurements. Most of the recorded temperature data was from liquid in glass thermometers, but that is not a direct measurement of temperature, it’s a lineal measurement of the height of a column of mercury, based on a model of the expansion rate of mercury.
And the newer recorded temperature data is based on MMTS, Max-Min-Temperature-System, which are thermistor based, which work by passing a direct current through the thermistor and measuring the voltage produced, based on the model of how the thermistor’s resistance changes as a function of temperature.

Here are a just a few of the reasons that the satellites produce the only thing close to a global mean temperature.

• “Satellites provide global coverage at much higher densities than attainable with in situ observations. In situ observations also suffer from non-uniform temporal coverage and undocumented changes in the instrumentation used that can lead to local biases and increased uncertainty.” – Carl Mears, http://remss.com/missions/amsu

• According to NASA, the satellite temperature measurements have been verified as being accurate to 0.03C: “The temperature measurements from space are verified by two direct and independent methods. The first involves actual in-situ measurements of the lower atmosphere made by balloon-borne observations around the world. The second uses intercalibration and comparison between two identical experiments on different orbiting platforms. The result is that the satellite temperature measurements are accurate to within three one-hundredths of a degree Centigrade (0.03 C) when compared to ground-launched balloons taking measurements over the same region of the atmosphere at the same time.” NASA,http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/essd06oct97_1/

• “thermometers cannot measure global averages – only satellites can. The satellite instruments measure nearly every cubic kilometer – … – of the lower atmosphere on a daily basis. You can travel hundreds if not thousands of kilometers without finding a thermometer nearby. … The thermometer network is made up of a patchwork of non-research quality instruments that were never meant to monitor long-term temperature changes to tenths or hundredths of a degree, and the huge data voids around the world are either ignored or in-filled with fictitious data. … Satellite microwave radiometers, however, are equipped with laboratory-calibrated platinum resistance thermometers, which have demonstrated stability to thousandths of a degree over many years, and which are used to continuously calibrate the satellite instruments every 8 seconds.” – http://drroyspencer.com/2014/10/why-2014-wont-be-the-warmest-year-on-record/

3) historical temperature values in the NASA dataset change on a monthly basis, based on blanket-applied computerized algorithms, not on actual station-by-station documented changes in instrumentation or other factors. This essentially renders duplication of scientific conclusions meaningless, since a correct conclusion using the dataset a year ago may no longer be correct now, because the historical data has changed. This is a sham and corrupts science.

4) the measurements are not temporally stable over time as
the stations in the datasets constantly change over time periods you are comparing apples and oranges

5) the measured temperatures are contaminated by Urban Heat Island Effect which exaggerates the warming. Urbanization has caused many station moves to surrounding cooler areas as cities have grown. This exaggerates warming trends as has been shown by peer reviewed science, Zhang(2014) ‘The effect of data homogenization on estimate of temperature trend’. Figure 6 of this paper shows the exaggerated warming caused by station moves: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/zhang_et_al_homogenization_china_fig6.png

6) the actual measured data are not included, only numbers which have been corrupted by improper adjustments for UHI, as those adjustments are backwards. For example, NASA has measured a recent UHI effect in Providence, RI of 12C. The “adjustments” in the temperature record have cooled the century-ago temperatures by over 2C. This is backwards for UHI.

7) The land based measuring stations measure the temperature a few m³ of the Earth’s atmosphere at each of those stations, a total of ~10,000 m³, while the satellites measure ~2,000,000,000,000,000,000 m³ of the Earth’s atmosphere.

“You’re a tired old hack sitting on his CFACT porch yelling at the kids across the streen to get off his lawn.”
My, you really get upset when people use science to expose the flaws in your climate alarmist belief system(religion). Very enlightening, and quite consistent with eminent scientists recognizing that the current climate alarmism is not science, it is religion, cult religion:

“Global warming differs from the preceding two affairs [Eugenics & Lysenkoism]: Global warming has become a religion. … people with no other source of meaning will defend their religion with jihadist zeal.” – Dr. Richard Lindzen, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, MIT Source: http://www.jpands.org/vol18no3/lindzen.pdf

“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.” – Dr. Richard Lindzen – Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor of Atmospheric Science.

David Wojick
December 14, 2017 at 2:04 PM

Shorey, I know what the satellite technology is. I suspect it is far less complex than an electron microscope of a NMR machine.

But if it to is completely unreliable, as the surface statistical models are, then we simply do not know what has happened as far as global average temperatures go. We do not know if it has warmed or cooled globally. If so then there is nothing for science to explain and no knowable threat. Works for me.

By the way, you endless insults just make you look stupid, which perhaps you are.

cshorey
December 8, 2017 at 10:10 PM

Funny that you have to make sure to only look at data before the 1980’s to get the solar control story. Ever since then the two have been decoupled. It would be dishonest to imply that pre 1980 is the same as post, as this article and its sources have. Not a single mention from any of them that an increase in solar radiation would cause a warming of the Stratosphere and Troposphere but what we observe is warming Troposphere and cooling Stratosphere overall, just what a greenhouse gas forcing would produce (it’s called fingerprinting – we can actually eliminate the Sun as a principal modern cause because the fingerprint goes the other way). And if this article is trying to say that the Sun creates cosmic rays that influence climate, that is a very weak link. Svensmark has directly stated that the aerosols produced in his CERN experiments are too small to act as cloud nuclei, thus killing one of CFACT’s favorite science distortions.

David Wojick
December 11, 2017 at 1:07 PM

The Climate Etc. article is not about mechanisms so as usual I do not see what you are getting at. You might try addressing what is said.

cshorey
December 11, 2017 at 1:28 PM

I directly say to the Climate Etc. article that the correlation breaks down after the 80’s, so sorry David, I did directly address what was being said. Pay attention. The point is that all those predictions and retrodictions saying human influence pulled out of the natural background influences in the 1980’s would mean ignoring the last few decades of decoupled solar/climate signal kills “javier’s” argument.

David Wojick
December 11, 2017 at 1:50 PM

Please point to he place in Javier’s article that you are responding to. I have no idea what you mean by “the correlation.” He talks about a lot of different correlations.

cshorey
December 11, 2017 at 9:10 PM

Goodness, this isn’t that hard. Everything after the 1980’s when the correlation breaks down between one measure of the climate shift (atmospheric temperature anomalies) and the Sun. But then there is a breakdown with all the climate shifts and the Sun after that. If the Sun were causing a warming, which you mistakenly think can’t even be detected, then it would cause a warming of all the layers of the atmosphere. Instead we measure a warming of the Troposphere and a cooling of the Stratosphere, which is exactly what was predicted for a greenhouse gas warming. Javier can show all the correlations before 1980 he/she wants and it doesn’t touch the fact that after the 1980’s those correlations break down. That’s the part of Javier’s argument I’m directly addressing yet again.

David Wojick
December 12, 2017 at 12:27 PM

I now assume that you are talking about the sunspot to temperature correlation. But this has been well known for over 20 years so the sun-climate researchers are well aware of it. The most it shows is that there is not a simple linear relationship, which no one claims.

In fact your argument is what I call alarmist boilerplate, as it is said often but means nothing. Even worse the supposed lack of correlation is between sunspot numbers and the unreliable output from the surface temperature statistical models, which show steady warming after 1980. As I have pointed out before, the satellites show no such warming. So maybe the correlation is better than thought.

As for stratospheric cooling, you are here assuming a strawman sun-climate mechanism simply in order to falsify it. A common fallacy. Have you actually looked at any of the sun-climate research?

cshorey
December 12, 2017 at 3:11 PM

You don’t have to assume it David, Javier gave links to the papers he was using to make the correlations as he didn’t collect the data himself of course, and those papers are sunspot correlation papers. But today we also have direct measurements of solar output and the magnetic field strengths of the Earth and Sun. When the sun puts out more energy it puts out more visible (warming the surface and thus the troposphere) and UV (warming the stratosphere ~ozone layer). This would cause warming of both layers as the Sun’s output increased. But what we observe is a cooling stratosphere just as Smagorinsky and Manabe predicted decades ago, and has been a robust signal in climate science. There is no solar forcing mechanism that warms the troposphere and cools the stratosphere. Yes, I believe I’ve looked at more sun-climate research than you have. None of your responses have touched the issue that all sun-climate correlations broke down after the 1980’s.

StephenWilde
December 13, 2017 at 10:39 AM

An active sun actually cools the stratosphere as per this description:

Thus your assumption about the sign of the solar effect is not appropriate.

The sun appears to alter the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles so as to change global cloudiness.

RealOldOne2
December 14, 2017 at 2:18 PM

“that the correlation breaks down after the 80’s … last few decades of decoupled solar/climate signal”
In my earlier comment to you, I showed that your claim is not true.

“all those predictions and retrodictions saying human influence pulled out of the natural background influences”
Those predictions and hindcasts are incapable of pulling out any human influence from the natural background because they are based on climate models, which do not accurately model the natural climate system, so they can’t be properly used to discern natural vs. human-caused climate changes. The models can’t accurately model climate change because they only use a few natural factors, and dozens of natural variables which influence that climate aren’t even included in the models.

And the whole human attribution claim has been built on a flawed foundation, where one individual, Ben Santer, violated the IPPC’s procedures, and singlehandedly edited Chap.8 of the IPCC SAR report to reverse the conclusions of all the authors who wrote the chapter. Santer’s shameful corruption of the IPCC report is documented here: http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Social/IPCC-Santer.htm

Santer used his own paper, that did not meet the IPCC deadline for submission to be considered in the report as a basis to reverse the authors’ conclusion, which was that no discernible human influence had yet been detected.
And to make it even worse, Santer’s paper was fatally flawed, because it used a cherry picked radiosonde dataset to draw his conclusions that attempted to show human influence. When the entire dataset was used, the conclusion was exactly the opposite of Santer’s paper’s conclusion. This is documented here: https://www.john-daly.com/sonde.htm

So the whole climate alarmist house of cards was built on a fraudulent claim that a discernible human influence on the climate had been detected. There remains no peer reviewed paper to this date that has empirically shown that human CO2 has been the primary cause of climate warming.

RealOldOne2
December 14, 2017 at 8:58 AM

“Funny that you have to make sure to only look at data before the 1980’s to get the solar control story. Ever since then the two have been decoupled”
That’s not true shorey. You, the IPCC, and other climate alarmists rule out the Sun based on only considering the Total Solar Irradiance at the Top of Atmosphere. But what is important to climate warming is how much solar radiation reaches the earth’s surface. This has been known for decades:

“It follows from the analysis of observation data that the secular variation in the mean temperature of the Earth can be explained by the variation of shortwave radiation arriving at the surface of the Earth.” – Budyko(1969) ‘The effect of solar radiation variations on the climate of the Earth’

And peer reviewed science shows that the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface since 1980 has increased by 2.7W/m² to 6.8W/m², while CO2 forcing increased only by ~1/10th that amount. So the empirical evidence is much more supportive of the Sun being the primary cause of the late 20th century warming, not CO2. Here are brief excerpts from a few of those peer reviewed papers confirming what I am saying:

“The decrease in the Earth’s reflectance from 1984 to 2000 suggested by Fig. 4, translates into a Bond albedo decrease of 0.02 (out of a nominal value of about 0.30) or an additional global shortwave forcing of 6.8W/m².”
Title: ‘Shortwave forcing of the Earth’s climate: Modern and historical variations in the Sun’s irradiance and Earth’s reflectance’
Author, P.R. Goode, E. Pallé
Journal: Journal of ATMOSPHERIC and SOLAR-TERRESTRIAL PHYSICS
DoP: Sept 2007
DOI: 10.1016/j.jastp.2007.06.011

“Long term variations in solar radiation at the Earth’s surface (S) can affect our climate … We observed an overall increase in S from 1983 to 2001 at a rate of 0.16 W per square meter (0.10%) per year … the observed changes in radiation budget are caused by changes in mean tropical cloudiness, which is detected in the satellite observations but fails to be predicted by several current climate models.” –
Title: ‘Do Satellites Detect Trends in Surface Solar Radiation?’
Author: R.T. Pinker, et al.
Journal: Science
DoP: 6 May 2005
DOI: 10.1126/science.1103159
(0.16W/m²/yr x 18 years=2.88W/m² for 1983-2001)

“The temperature pattern for the period 1988-1997 appears to be generally consistent with the 7% reduction in total cloud cover that occurred across the period 1987-1999. Applying that reduction to the influence of clouds in the energy budget described by Trenberth et al. [34] results in an increased average solar forcing at the Earth’s surface of about 5 Wm⁻². This increase is more than double the IPCC’s estimated radiative forcing from all anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. … Conclusions Since 1950, global average temperature anomalies have been driven firstly, from 1950 to 1987, by a sustained shift in ENSO conditions, by reductions in total cloud cover (1987 to late 1990s) and then a shift from low cloud to mid and high-level cloud, with both changes in cloud cover being very widespread. According to the energy balance described by Trenberth et al. (2009) [34], the reduction in total cloud cover accounts for the increase in temperature since 1987, leaving little, if any, of the temperature change to be attributed to other forcings.” –
Title: ‘Late Twentieth-Century Warming and Variations in Cloud Cover’
Author: John McLean
Journal: Atmospheric and Climate Sciences
DoP: October 24, 2014
DOI: 10.4236/acs.2014.44066

“Not a single mention from any of them that an increase in solar radiation would cause a warming of the Stratosphere and Troposphere but what we observe is a warming Troposphere and cooling Troposphere”
What you are not mentioning is:
1) tropospheric and stratospheric warming have different physical mechanisms
2) there is no empirical evidence showing that the present tropospheric warming /stratospheric cooling is not natural, so your ‘fingerprinting’ claim is not valid, because what is being observed is not shown to be unique.
3) you are ignoring the fact that different parts of the solar radiation spectrum, like UV, change by much higher amounts than TSI does
4) you are ignoring the peer reviewed science showing impacts of UV, of changes in stratospheric water vapor, and stratospheric-tropospheric coupling.
This is discussed in more detail in section 2.6.5 Stratospheric Perturbation, in the NIPCC Climate Change Reconsidered II – Physical Science report

This documentary, Svensmark: The Cloud Mystery is one of the best documentaries ever produced on the climate system. In addition to documenting Svenmark’s climate hypothesis, it documents the very unscientific and quite frankly juvenile behavior of the ‘Climate Establishment’ as the oppose Svensmark, even though they have no solid scientific evidence to refute him.

“killing one of CFACT’s favorite science distortions.”
You are exposing your bias. You’ve provided no evidence that CFACT has distorted science. They just present other science that you probably haven’t seen because you have only looked at the biased, one-sided view, which is really propaganda, of those promoting climate alarmism.

MichaelR
December 11, 2017 at 2:36 AM

“There is a lot of debate about the sun’s role in global warming and climate change. Some scientists argue that the sun plays the dominant role, making human activity insignificant.”

This is factually incorrect. The action of the sun is well understood and of course it’s variability is factored into models of warming. Indeed it is one of the climate sceptics’ favourite tricks to look at temperature vs CO2 over the last 500million years and point to the lack of direct correlation, which is because THEY are ignoring the warming sun over that period!

The fact that’s solar output as TSI has been static or falling since the early 1970s makes it impossible to argue that increased solar activity has caused the very significant warming in that same period.

Stop trotting out this bullshit assertion. There is no empirical evidence to support it. In fact the evidence obviously goes against the sun as the driver of recent warming, whereas GHGs and primarily CO2 explain it very well.

David Wojick
December 11, 2017 at 12:58 PM

You need to go argue with Javier, not with me. But it is widely recognized that TSI is not the issue. The research is focused on other variables and mechanisms, which are certainly not well understood.

MichaelR
December 11, 2017 at 1:35 PM

By “not well understood” I think it would be more accurate to say that they have not been robustly demonstrated to be causing significant warming compared with GHGs and known feedback effects. There are a handful of respectable papers that have tried to analyse the action of cosmic rays on the atmosphere but none come within a mile of explaining the past and present behaviour of the atmosphere as well as the established science that is built into the IPDC models.

The way you are positing these “not well understood” mechanisms suggests that “Jeez, if only we could figure out why this warming is happening gosh darn it, but these mysterious actions of the sun are just so tricky.” But that is nonsense. We know more than enough to know for a fact that man made CO2 is responsible for current warming and that minimising that warming will rely on minimising future emissions.

There is of course research to do around the margins and we will surely come to understand it all with more precision in time but FFS, can we stop inspecting the cutlery while the Titanic goes down here. We don’t get another shot at this. If we F up our atmosphere it will be for all intents and purposes irreversible and our generation will go down in human history as the fuckwits who watched it happen. That will have cause greater damage to the future of mankind and our biosphere than anything we have managed to screw up thus far. I really don’t want to die in a world that is a shit show compared to when I was born because of stupid ideological arguments about settled science like this. That would be the ultimate tragedy for all our lives and those of our descendants.

David Wojick
December 11, 2017 at 1:59 PM

There is certainly no robust demonstration that CO2 is causing the current warming. In fact there is no evidence of CO2 doing anything in the entire 40 year satellite record of atmospheric temperatures. What little warming there is is entirely coincident with two big El Ninos.

Actually it is coincident with the 1998+ ENSO. We will have to wait a few years to see if the latest El Nino has caused a warming step up, like the first one did. But even if it does, there is still no sign of significant GHG warming.

Beyond that you must either explain or explain away the considerable evidence that Javier presents. If you mean by no robust demonstration that there is as yet no explanation for these remarkable correlations, that is precisely his point.

MichaelR
December 12, 2017 at 2:08 AM

“There is certainly no robust demonstration that CO2 is causing the current warming. In fact there is no evidence of CO2 doing anything in the entire 40 year satellite record of atmospheric temperatures.”

You know that is a lie. There are literally 1000s of papers that draw this exact conclusion. The mechanism for CO2 as a GHG has been understood since the 19th century. It’s impact on the climate in past climate is well attested to in multiple fields of research.

“What little warming there is is entirely coincident with two big El Ninos.”

El Ninos/La Nina are cycles lasting around 7-10 years. Cycles means they COME and then GO so how can they possible be responsible for 0.7 degrees net trend warming since the early 70s?

And if Javier’s work is so groundbreaking, why is it not published in a well reputed academic journal? You should know the general quality of dross that is found on blog sites masquerading as peer reviewed science. Javier’s research is MEANINGLESS until it undergoes peer review, publication and the opportunity for other groups to refute it. That is what real science has to go through to ensure it’s robust.

Your qualification is in epistemology. You have no formal training in climate science but you should at the very least understand how the system of publication in esteemed peer reviewed journals has allowed mankind to build up a robust canon of reliable scientific knowledge, free from biased and flimsy claptrap. You should not be expounding views that a) categorically deny well established science and b) push forward work that has not met any burden of review, publication or been subject to testing by replication post such publication by other groups.

I don’t like to get ad hominem but as someone concerned about how we can know what we know in science, and how flagrantly you are subverting that with your stated views here, I can only imagine that you do it because you are under some kind of delusion of because the money is good…

David Wojick
December 12, 2017 at 12:42 PM

El Ninos and La Ninas are relatively brief major changes in Pacific ocean circulation. According to the satellite record there was little or no atmospheric warming from its beginning in 1978 until the giant El Nino struck in 1998. Once that ENSO subsided there was again no significant warming, until the recent big El Nino struck.

However, the second period of no warming was warmer than the first period, presumably due to the giant El Nino. There is no evidence of any GHG warming in this entire record. What the recent El Nino will bring remains to be seen and it will take several years to find out.

What is truly sad is that there are thousands of papers trying to explain the supposed surface warming, estimated by the surface temperature computer models. The reality is that warming probably never happened, so science is working hard to explain what simply does not exist.

MichaelR
December 12, 2017 at 1:14 PM

Why do I have to state the bleeding obvious here? El Niño events are part of a cycle. They drive the surface temperature up for a while, then as the cycle reverses then their surface warming effect reverses. That is what a cycle means. The cycle just transfers energy from the deep ocean to the upper ocean atmosphere, but then the cycle reverses, cooling the surface again.

So they don’t cause net warming as you seem to imply. In fact you certainly could not even assert that they do (ie that the atmosphere and ocean surface are warming long term while the deep ocean cools long term) as the deep ocean is also warming significantly.

Michael, did you even read what I said? For example, I never said there was no warming since 1978, quite the contrary. Plus you have given a link to a surface temperature computer model output, when I specifically referenced the satellite record. These surface models are no good.

The step up in average temperature that follows the giant El Nino is pretty obvious once you look for it. The second big El Nino peaks in 2016.

MichaelR
December 12, 2017 at 2:38 PM

First, in what paper are the computer modelled reconstructions dismissed as you seem to want to above? UAH is just one dataset of one part of the atmosphere. There are others that are also valid and should be accounted for to get a total picture of the global atmospheric temperature.

Also, even in that set, you can see it as a clean warming trend. Sure there is a big perturbation in the middle but that does not mean that the perturbation CAUSED the trend.

Besides, you can not argue that the ocean has lost energy to the atmosphere long term post this event as the ocean temperatures IS STILL RISING as well.

So to try to make out that ocean cycles are dumping energy into the atmosphere and there is no net energy increase is crap. The oceans are absorbing huge amounts of energy AND the atmosphere is warming significantly as well.

The former fact is one of the reasons scientists are so worried about huge ice sheets on the Antarctic coast that are being undermined by warming waters. And if they break off, they will reveal huge towering cliffs of land ice that will be completely unstable and start a runaway collapse and melt of currently land ice.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X14007961
Even a deliberately sceptical write up of the same work does not detract from the scale of the danger here.

Anyway back on topic, it’s clearly nonsense to suggest that the surface warming is a function of an energy dump from the ocean that will reverse. It won’t reverse. The whole system is warming, thanks to man made GHGs as 1000s of papers agree.

socalpa
December 12, 2017 at 6:38 PM

Quite a speech !
.
The problem for you is ,that similar warming and cooling periods occurred since 1700 CE . ~200 years before any significant rise in CO2 .Then , after 1875 temps declined to near the lowest of the Holocene as CO2 rose .
.
Your ignoring of the impact of large scale multi decade ocean currents like AMO and PIO is silly . These are long recognized drivers of surface temps .In fact ,it was recently found Arctic sea ice extent was driven by AMOC phase ,not ghgs .
.
And NASA reported Antarctica ( 90% of global ice) increasing in both continental (jand ice) and sea ice for decades .
.
You mistake your opinions of what the science and data shows for facts .
.
And your pointless hostility is tiresome .

MichaelR
December 13, 2017 at 2:27 AM

You have made some quite specific assertions there. So I expect you can cite journal papers to support then right? Please could you link to them?

Just re the Antarctic ice, you know that that is only half the picture. The Greenland ice shelf if melting much faster than ice on Antarcticais being accumulated. The last numbers I saw has a NET melt of land ice of 160 billion tonnes per year.

If I am “hostile” it’s because I find it tiresome when climate change sceptics repeatedly and deliberately misrepresent science to suit their agenda, as you demonstrated with the ice sheet melt figures above.

socalpa
December 13, 2017 at 12:40 PM

And , another speech ?

RealOldOne2
December 14, 2017 at 9:55 AM

“If there were 1000s of published papers refuting the scientific consensus then there would be a debate.”
The thousands of papers exist, but are ignored by the promoters of human-caused climate alarmism like the IPCC.
They are not ignored in the NIPCC Climate Change Reconsidered II – Physical Science report , which concludes that climate change is still predominantly natural, just as it has been throughout the entire history of the planet.

“the mountains of established science”
None of which empirically shows that human CO2 has been the primary cause of climate warming.

“so you claim your own facts without any robust published evidence to support them.”
Your ignorance of the facts and scientific studies which expose the flaws in your climate alarmist beliefs is noted.

MichaelR
December 14, 2017 at 10:29 AM

Do you recognise that there is a difference between work that is published on, say, blogs, and work that is published in well regarded peer reviewed journals?

Do you know what the impact factor of a journal is and know why it matters?

God knows the Internet is littered with biased, poorly researched work that caters to conspiracy theorists who try to make out that the entire scientific method has failed when it comes to climate science. You can cite as many blog posts as you like. It makes no difference.

Good science ends up in peer reviewed, well regarded journals that you will find listed on the master journal list. If it can’t make it there then there is a reason. It’s either biased, uses poor methods, poor data or has other defects that mean it is not robust.

You are incredibly gullible (or more likely just ideologically biased) if you prefer to believe work that has NOT met this standard in favour of work that has. Either way, my original point stands.

There is pretty much a total absence of work published in well regarded peer reviewed journals to support your view that current warming is “natural” and a huge abundance of evidence to demonstrate that it is man made.

Out of curiousity, which part do you object to?

1 CO2 traps heat and causes a warmer atmosphere?
2 that humans have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by about 50% since the industrial revolution
3 that that large increase in CO2 is causing the atmosphere to warm?
4 that the forcing effect of CO2 alone causes an increase in temp by 1 degree C with a doubling of CO2
5 that with feedback effects like additional water vapour, large scale ice melt, methane release, deteriorating forests etc due to heat stress and rain pattern changes etc , that a doubling of CO2 will actually lead to an increase in temp of about 3 degrees C?

You are making a total fool out of yourself by ranting on about blogs, because I referenced no blogs. And you ignored the thousands of peer reviewed articles which are in the NIPCC Climate Change Reconsidered II – Physical Science report which lead to the conclusion of natural driven climate change. You totally failed to even address those thousands of peer reviewed papers.

“You are incredibly gullible (or more likely just ideologically biased) if you prefer to believe work that has NOT met this standard in favor of work that has”
You are projecting, and spouting nonsense, since every on of those papers in the NIPCC report did meet the peer review standard. And I would point out that a citizen audit of the the IPCC AR4 report, which claimed to use 100% peer reviewed science, showed that 30% of all the references in the report were NOT peer reviewed, but were from activist and advocacy gray literature.

“Either way, my original point stands.”
No, your original point fails, because you failed to refute anything I said, you failed to refute any of the science in the NIPCC report, you failed to provide any empirical evidence to support your catastrophic human-caused climate alarmism religious beliefs.

“There is pretty much a total absence of work published in well regarded peer reviewed journals to support your view that current warming is “natural” and a huge abundance of evidence to demonstrate that it is man made.”
You are delusionally denying reality. There are hundreds and hundreds of peer reviewed papers in the NIPCC report that you are pretending don’t exist. In an above comment here I cited several peer reviewed papers that show natural solar forcing during the late 20th century was ~10 times greater than CO2 forcing. Refute that. You can’t.

“Out of curiosity, which part do you object to?”
You are merely repeating your climate religion’s dogma talking points.

“1) CO2 traps heat and causes a warmer atmosphere?
only when all other things remain the same, which they never do, and how much warmer has never been empirically quantified.

“2) that humans have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by about 50% since the industrial revolution”
The latest peer reviewed science shows that only 15% of the increase in CO2 since the industrial era is from humans:

“The anthropogenic contribution to the actual CO2 concentration is found to be 4.3%, its fraction to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era is 15%” – Harde(2017) ‘Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere’

And peer reviewed science shows that 70% of that “greening” is due to the CO2 fertilization effect:

“Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Says – “From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25. … Studies have shown that increased concentrations of carbon dioxide increase photosynthesis, spurring plant growth. … Results showed that carbon dioxide fertilization explains 70 percent of the greening effect, said co-author Ranga Myneni, a professor in the Department of Earth and Environment at Boston University.” – NASA, https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

And over the last half of the 20th century, the CO2 fertilization effect has also contributed to 40 of 43 food crops increasing their yields by an average of 96%, while only 3 of 43 food crops decreased their yields by an average of 6%. Here’s the empirical data:
Maize(corn):Up 139%
Wheat: Up 134%
Rice: Up 104%
Barley: Up 83%
Rye/Oats: Up 69%
Millet/Sorghum: Up 57%http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/img/chartroom/219.gif

The real world empirical evidence does not support your catastrophic human-caused climate alarmism. It supports that warming and more CO2 is a GOOD thing for humanity and the planet. You have been duped.

LTJ
January 7, 2018 at 11:43 AM

“Does the NIPCC fairly and robustly assess the science? No. It is all too
easy to find “debunked” papers getting a second life in latest NIPCC
report.”

Peer review just means that two people see nothing obviously wrong. Given the herd mentality of climate alarmism that is not hard to find. Most journals are dominated by alarmists, because most academic scientists are alarmists (as well as being liberals).

But you will notice that many of these papers are heavily debated after they appear. Many are discredited. This means that the fact that they passed peer review tells us nothing about their value. Blogs are where much of this debate occurs. It is called post-publication peer review.

MichaelR
December 14, 2017 at 3:26 PM

Only in your made up world where blogs are equivalent to journals.
In real academia, if papers are legitimately disputed or refuted then that happens in journals as well. If they are just superseded then no one cites them and they fall into obscurity. If they are found to be flawed they are formally retracted.

I suspect you know this but are trying nonetheless to create an alternative, competing area of discussion where real papers can be picked apart, misquoted and misrepresented, as well as supplemented by non-peer reviewed work, all to drive a paticular narrative.
The reason real scientists trust reputable journals is because they know them to be objective and reliable. That is why real journals get highly impact factors, because their papers is useful and reliable.

Your attack on the peer review process in good journals, that it is flimsy and biased, is both lacking evidence and in fact is refuted by the fact that these journals would only suffer if they stopped putting out original and novel research. Academics don’t pay the huge subscription fees to these journals to be told what they already know. Peer review is not about the conclusions of the paper, it’s about the methodology and rigour of the paper’s author. That is why academics trust it, whereas they couldn’t care less about drivel on blogs, as it is a waste of their time to be reading material that has NOT met standards for publication in a good journal.

This is how science has proceeded for 300 years and it will continue to do so despite your attempts to muddy the waters by trying to equate blogs with journals. As I keep saying, if there was lots of good research refuting AGW, it would be catalogued in hundreds or indeed 1000s of papers in good journals, but, despite the Heartland Institute trying to portray the situation otherwise, there is not.

David Wojick
December 15, 2017 at 11:26 AM

Michael, journals and blogs are not equivalent, they are symbiotic. Journals publish millions of reports of specific research results. Blogs provide a real time platform for assessing the important reports, both at the article level and with regard to broader specific topics and issues.

Curry’s blog is one of the best in this regard and Javier article is a good examples of topic level assessment, which is why I pointed to it. Curry’s discussions often include a lot of valuable technical content and the scientific debate stands out clearly. This is why there are over 850,000 comments to date, because both the proponents of dangerous AGW and the skeptics are well represented.

As for there being 1000s of articles collectively indicating that AGW is wrong, these indeed exist. There are several good partial collections of them, especially the one at http://www.co2science.org/. They have plain language synopses of several thousand such articles, organized by topic.

Peer review is useful when it doesn’t become gate-keeping, or paradigm protection as I call it. This has certainly happened with climate science. It is a deplorable result of the takeover of the scientific community by the alarmist movement.

That the USGCRP funding is extremely biased is another unfortunate result, since it means that most of the research assumes AGW, rather than testing it. The government climate models all have AGW built in. Thus the research is often pro-AGW by default. More paradigm protection.

MichaelR
December 15, 2017 at 12:31 PM

Good peer reviewed journals have a particular role – they are where scientists document robust science. However it is blogs that climate change sceptics routinely cite when trying to make their case.

The fundamental problem here is what you say here:
“Peer review is useful when it doesn’t become gate-keeping, or paradigm protection as I call it. This has certainly happened with climate science.”

This is a conspiracy theory. This is saying that nearly all scientists and ALL the well regarded journals, including the most august and respected in the world have thrown away the impartiality that has been their underpinning for centuries in some cases. Nature, Science, all of them. When was the last time this happened?

Not only this, but government science bodies worldwide. national and other science academies worldwide, EVERYONE but a tiny minority of scientists are in on the conspiracy and have concluded that that they need to shut down the debate on climate change. All except a very small minority, who can’t get published in peer reviewed journals and who somehow can only get funding and attention drawn to their work by bodies like the Heartland Institute, who in turn just happen to be funded by the fossil fuel industry and others who stand to lose out if strong action is taken on climate change.

This is clearly not plausible.

The scientific method is has been followed as normal, despite a huge amount of resistance from a political and ideological cabal out to sabotage it. You can try to muddy the waters all you like, but the methods that got us cell phones, AIDS medication, discovery of gravitation waves and plate tectonic theory have been followed and they produce a very robust theory that CO2 emmissions by man have earned the oceans and atmosphere significantly already and will continue to do so further if we don’t stop emitting them right now. Sorry that it inconveniences your friends at the Heartland Institute but maybe they should just quit their bullshit and invest in the energy systems of the future. The change will be an amazing opportunity to develop new technologies and create millions of new jobs. That is where the smart money is going now.

RealOldOne2
December 15, 2017 at 11:38 PM

Michael, it is apparent that you are so ideologically blinded that you deny reality and ignore any evidence that is contrary to your climate alarmist belief system. It’s a shame that you have been so seriously duped and aren’t astute enough to recognize it. You dodge arguments with a host of the logical fallacies that are listed here: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ .

You are using the tu quoque logical fallacy to avoid addressing Wojick’s salient point that blogs like Curry’s are on-line peer review, which must pass scrutiny of hundreds of scientists, not just a few like-minded carefully selected pals.

“However it is blogs that climate change skeptics routinely cite when trying to make their case.”
You are using the anecdotal logical fallacy to dodge the fact that bogs such as Curry’s are on-line peer review.

“This is conspiracy theory. …”
You are using the strawman logical fallacy to dodge the fact that you climate alarmists are indeed gatekeeping to keep skeptical papers from being published. The evidence of this was revealed in the whistle-blower leaked climategate emails, when they bullied journal editors and attempted to get them fired and said that they would keep skeptical papers from being published even if they had to redefine what peer review was.

“Not only this, but government science bodies worldwide, national and other science academies worldwide, …”
You are using the appeal to authority logical fallacy, the bandwagon logical fallacy

“The scientific method has been followed as normal…”
This is flat out false. The accepted null climate hypothesis is that climate change is caused by natural climate variables. The entire history of the planet is the evidence of this. The way science works is that if you believe the null hypothesis is no longer valid, you must empirically falsify the null hypothesis. The null climate hypothesis of natural climate change has never been empirically falsified.

The next thing that must be done according to the scientific method is to empirically validate your proposed new CO2 is not the primary cause of climate change hypothesis. This has also never been done.

The scientific method is to develop a hypothesis, test it against empirical data, and if the data doesn’t agree with the hypothesis, the hypothesis is adjusted.
Your CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 climate alarmist so-called scientists have proposed their climate hypothesis of catastrophic human-caused climate change, and the empirical data has been collected, and it doesn’t agree with your hypothesis, but instead of adjusting your hypothesis, you climate alarmists adjust the data.” That is a corruption of the scientific method. This is why eminent scientists recognize that you aren’t doing science, you are doing religion, belief, where you hold your CO2 dogma to be sacrosanct, unviolable. That’s religion. Here is what eminent scientists have said:

“Global warming differs from the preceding two affairs [Eugenics & Lysenkoism]: Global warming has become a religion. … people with no other source of meaning will defend their religion with jihadist zeal.” – Dr. Richard Lindzen, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, MIT Source: http://www.jpands.org/vol18no3/lindzen.pdf

“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.” – Dr. Richard Lindzen – Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor of Atmospheric Science.

“You can try to muddy the waters all you like”
Skeptics aren’t trying to muddy the waters. They are raising objections based on empirical data which proves that your alarmist predictions of catastrophe and doom have failed to happen as predicted.

From 1940 to the mid 1970s humans added 2/3rds of all the human CO2 ever produced to that point to the atmosphere, and the global temperature cooled over those 3+ decades. More clear evidence that your CO2 hypothesis is a failed hypothesis. This is why the climate scientists of the mid-1900s rejected the CO2 hypothesis:

“Arrhenius and Chamberlain saw in this [variations in carbon dioxide] a cause of climate changes, but the theory was never widely accepted and was abandoned … burning coal has increased the amount of CO2 by a measurable amount (from 0.28 to 0,30 percent), and Callendar [7] sees in this an explanation of the recent rise in global temperature. But during the last 7000 years there have been greater fluctuations in temperature without the intervention of man, and there seems to be no reason to regard the recent rise as more than a coincidence. This theory is not considered further.” – 1951 Compendium of Meteorology, ‘Theories of Climate Change due to terrestrial causes’, ‘Variations of Carbon Dioxide’, p. 1018

And peer reviewed empirical science, Hatzianastassiou(2005), Goode(2007), Pinker(2005), Herman(2013), McLean(2014), have documented that natural climate forcing, more solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface, increased by 2.7W/m² to 6.8W/m² during the late 20th century warming. CO2 forcing increased by only ~1/10th that amount. Further empirical evidence that climate change remains natural, not anthropogenic.

See Michael, peer reviewed science and empirical data, not “blogs”. You are an empty vessel, using logical fallacies and repeating false climate alarmist scare propaganda. There’s not a single peer reviewed paper in existence that empirically shows that human CO2 has been the primary cause of climate change. I challenge you to cite one. You can’t. No propaganda talking points now. Refute the science I have presented.

MichaelR
December 16, 2017 at 7:07 AM

“You are using the tu quoque logical fallacy to avoid addressing Wojick’s salient point that blogs like Curry’s are on-line peer review, which must pass scrutiny of hundreds of scientists, not just a few like-minded carefully selected pals.”

No, I am doing no such thing. It is nothing like a tu quoque, but whatever. I am saying that Curry’s blog is not a well reputed scientific journal. If scientists want to exchange ideas there, so what? It does not elevate it to the position of a journal. If you are saying that journals are no longer reliable, then you are claiming a vast global conspiracy, which is ludicrous. See below.

“You are using the anecdotal logical fallacy to dodge the fact that bogs such as Curry’s are on-line peer review.”

No, as a matter of fact, they are NOT. There is discussion of work by a self selecting audience. That is not equivalent to a well regarded peer reviewed journal. If Curry wants to launch a journal then good luck, and we will see what impact factor it gets for itself.

“”This is conspiracy theory. …”
You are using the strawman logical fallacy to dodge the fact that you climate alarmists are indeed gatekeeping to keep skeptical papers from being published. The evidence of this was revealed in the whistle-blower leaked climategate emails, when they bullied journal editors and attempted to get them fired and said that they would keep skeptical papers from being published even if they had to redefine what peer review was.”

OMG, ClimateGate, still? There were a handful of ill judged comments in one institution that did not even mean what they were alleged to mean, in 2009, and that is your whole evidence for a global conspiracy? I am guessing you believe in contrails and that man never went to the moon as well right?

“”Not only this, but government science bodies worldwide, national and other science academies worldwide, …”
You are using the appeal to authority logical fallacy, the bandwagon logical fallacy”

No, an appeal to authority is when the expert I am citing does not have relevant expertise. In this case, the experts I am citing have relevant expertise. Your interpretation would say that me doing as my doctor suggested, rather than my postman, about my fever would be an appeal to authority. Or that believing engineer when he says that bridge will need better support if it is not to fail under load is an appeal to authority.
My point is that not only do all the relevant academic bodies take one position, the bodies that oppose that position are very few in number and can pretty much all be shown to have bias due to their sources of funding. And there is plenty of precedent for industry pushing scientific misinformation via its own funded bodies to achieve its political ends, and there is plenty of evidence that this is gong on now.

“”The scientific method has been followed as normal…”
This is flat out false. The accepted null climate hypothesis is that climate change is caused by natural climate variables. …The null climate hypothesis of natural climate change has never been empirically falsified.”

Yes it has. We know the action of CO2 on the atmosphere from over a century of theory, research and validation. It’s pure nonsense to say that CO2 does not warm the atmosphere. It has been well established that if we had no CO2 in the atmosphere, the atmosphere would be well below its current temperature. And the mechanism is also well understood, modelled and tested.

In fact, as a matter of interest, this is even true for other planets such as Venus which has a runaway greenhouse effect (caused by CO2) making its surface temperature higher than Mercury despite being twice as far from the sun and having a highly reflective atmosphere.

“…you climate alarmists adjust the data.” That is a corruption of the scientific method. “

So this is the conspiracy theory again. It’s not “alarmists” that correct data when systematic errors are discovered, it’s just scientists at the bodies taking and publishing the data. According to your theory, the team at RSS which had outlying data in its well publicised v3 dataset for global temperatures, were until 2016 sceptical of climate change because their data did not show warming clearly as other teams. Then suddenly they joined the alarmist camp in 2016 when they responded to another team pointing out a systematic error in their satellite data, and they corrected it to the v4 version, which was, surprise surprise convergent with everyone else.

“Here is what eminent scientists have said:
“Global warming differs from the preceding two affairs [Eugenics & Lysenkoism]: Global warming has become a religion. … people with no other source of meaning will defend their religion with jihadist zeal.” – Dr. Richard Lindzen, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, MIT Source: http://www.jpands.org/vol18…”
… funded by Peabody, a giant coal company,

“”This is propaganda. This is really a religious cult. And it’s a complete falsehood to say that it’s science.” – Prof. William Happer, Physics Professor Emeritus, Princeton Univ. Source: ( Will Happer, Princeton’s Galileo — disq.us )
“global warming has become a religion” – Nobel Laureate PhD physicist Ivar Giaever, http://www.foreignpolicyjou…”
… funded by Peabody and on tape as saying he would write pro-CO2 articles at $250 per hour and he could conceal the route of the funding to avoid suspicion.

“”Future generations will wonder in …proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.” – Dr. Richard Lindzen – Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor of Atmospheric Science.”
… as above, funded by Peabody.

“Skeptics aren’t trying to muddy the waters. They are raising objections based on empirical data which proves that your alarmist predictions of catastrophe and doom have failed to happen as predicted.”

First, then why can they not confine themselves to publishing work in well regarded academic journals as proof of the veracity of their work? Why are they constantly responsible for misinformation from claiming that ice melt is not happening, to claiming that temperatures are not rising, to claiming that sea levels aren’t rising, to claiming that hundreds of papers say that climate change is not happening when those papers say no such thing, to claiming that Arctic sea ice is not melting long term, or the same about glaciers etc etc etc. These are facts, with simple and clear measurements to demonstrate them. And sceptics swear that black is white all the same. And they keep coming back no matter how many times they are shown to be wrong…

“That’s just, to use your word, bullshit. Since 1997 humans have added ~40% of all the human CO2 ever produced to the atmosphere, over 600 billion tons worth, and it hasn’t caused any increase in the temperature of the atmosphere. Only the natural 2015-2016 El Nino, which was a release of stored solar energy from the ocean to the atmosphere has caused any increase. “

Except that is not true is it. The top 16 warmest years globally have been in the last 17 years. El Niño transfers heat from the ocean to the atmosphere for a very short period, 2 or 3 years. And somehow temperatures are higher now in both the atmosphere AND the ocean than in the 1970s.

“Arrhenius and Chamberlain saw in …there seems to be no reason to regard the recent rise as more than a coincidence. This theory is not considered further.” – 1951 Compendium of Meteorology, ‘Theories of Climate Change due to terrestrial causes’, ‘Variations of Carbon Dioxide’, p. 1018

You are quoting a paper from 1951? But you know that there has been much more warming since then. So that statement is at best needs to be revisited and at worst is just out of date and wrong.

“And peer reviewed empirical science, Hatzianastassiou(2005), “

“(From the paper) 1984-2000 period (equivalent to 2.4 and 2.2 Wm-2 per decade), indicating an increasing surface solar radiative heating. This surface SW radiative heating is primarily attributed to clouds, especially low-level, and secondarily to other parameters such as total precipitable water.”

But Hatzianastassiou (2011) shows a marked decrease in radiative heating again after that. The Northern Hemisphere underwent slight brightening during the time of the 2011 study (2000-2006) but was overcompensated for by a strong dimming of surface solar radiation in the Southern Hemisphere – whose surface area is largely dominated by ocean.
So you are cherry picking your data in terms of the period you want to examine. Warming has continued while radiative heating has fallen or remained static.

Goode(2007),
Shows the same short term effects as Hatzianastassiou(2005), then says in his conclusion.
“Regardless of its possible solar ties, we have seen how the Earth’s large scale reflectance—and the short wavelength part of the Earth’s radiation budget—is a much more variable climate parameter than previously thought and, thus, deserves to be studied in as much detail as changes in the Sun’s output or changes in the Earth’s atmospheric infrared emission produced by anthropogenic green- house gases. “
So his conclusion explicitly acknowledges the action of man made greenhouse gasses.

Pinker(2005),
Broadly the same as Hatzianastassiou(2005), so I won’t restate myself.

Herman(2013)
I could not find the paper you are citing.

McLean(2014),
Published in Atmospheric and Climate Sciences (ACS) which is an openly accessible journal published quarterly. It’s not in the master journal list and it has an impact factor of 0.84 so is irrelevant.

“have documented that natural climate forcing, more solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface, increased by 2.7W/m² to 6.8W/m² during the late 20th century warming. “

This is plucked from the McLean paper (which is not in a decent peer reviewed journal) and he cites another paper, P.R. Goode, E. Palle 2007 as his source, but that figure does not appear in the paper he cites. This is the same paper that acknowledges the “changes in the Earth’s atmospheric infrared emission produced by anthropogenic green- house gases.”

“CO2 forcing increased by only ~1/10th that amount. “
Well, the increase you compare it to is not sourced so there is not much talking about relative forcings.

Well, there are more sources than I could list here that easily refute that. But the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA has a good summary paper here:
Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissionshttp://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1704.full

Otherwise feel free to refute the 9000 or so papers cited in the IPCC 5th Report, plus the other 1000s that are referenced in the annexes.

RealOldOne2
December 15, 2017 at 12:36 PM

Accurate and well stated.

classicalmusiclover
December 14, 2017 at 6:51 AM

What did Zwally say would likely occur to total Antarctic continental ice within just the next couple decades if current trends held?

Statistical sampling theory is perfectly clear that no valid inference can be made about a population (in this case the average of all of the temperatures everywhere on earth at a given time) from an availability or convenience sample, which is all that we have. It simply cannot be done.

It has to be a random sample of the entire population and we have nothing remotely like that.

2. If the only significant warming is coincident with a giant ENSO it is certainly reasonable, via Occam’s razor, to suppose that that is the cause. What else could it be? Certainly not the buildup of GHGs.

All the giant El Nino has to do is to leave a little heat in the air when it subsides, so that the natural oscillations thereafter are around a higher average heat content. Seems easy enough.

3. The so-called ocean heat increase is based on computer models and convenience samples that are far worse than the worthless surface temperature models, because the ocean case is 3D. But I suppose worthless is just that and it does not come in degrees of worthlessness.

Li D
January 12, 2018 at 11:26 PM

You dont have a clue about statistics or valid inferences if you believe what you wrote.
Absolute horseshit.

David Wojick
January 13, 2018 at 11:13 AM

Actually Li D, I have a PhD in it. But your comment is empty as usual. You seem to be in love with your own voice.

Grumnut1
December 14, 2017 at 8:35 AM

Why not tell us how you REALLY feel.

Li D
January 12, 2018 at 11:16 PM

” “Jeez, if only we could figure out why this warming is happening gosh darn it, but these mysterious actions of the sun are just so tricky.” ”
Boo ya! Love it.
A nicely written comment all round.

socalpa
December 12, 2017 at 6:19 PM

That is what was believed the cause of Arctic ice retreat observed 1980-2005 .CO2 was claimed driver .
.
Turns out , the AMOC ocean current positive phase was the culprit, that ended and now the Arctic projected to have stable to increasing ice cover next decade(s) ;

https://eos.org/research-spotlights/atlantic-sea-ice-could-grow-in-the-next-decade
.
And, the Solar Activity was highest in over a century in cycles peaking 1960s – 1990s.
.
The oceans are redistributing that heat , and you ignore the thermal inertia of the oceans as well as the fact that water vapor is the dominant forcing for surface heat retention over open oceans at > 90% and Insolation the energy that warms the oceans to begin with as oceans surfaces are opaque to IR . SW (solar irradiance) penetrates hundreds of meters .

classicalmusiclover
December 14, 2017 at 6:51 AM

Gee, Socal, what was the title of the Yeager et al 2015 study? What was its first sentence?

socalpa
January 6, 2018 at 3:35 PM

What were the papers conclusions ?

classicalmusiclover
January 6, 2018 at 3:41 PM

What was the paper’s title.

What was the paper’s first sentence?

Did it ever claim that the long-term trend of Arctic ice loss was not a result of AGW?

socalpa
January 6, 2018 at 4:13 PM

It clearly showed the trend since 1980 ended in 2005 .
.
And claimed the observed trend 1980 -2005 was driven by AMOC phase , not ghgs as alarmists claimed .
.
Continue clinging to your noise and title. Funny to watch !

classicalmusiclover
January 6, 2018 at 4:21 PM

So, you believe that the data in the Yeager et al paper refutes its own title and first sentence?

socalpa
January 6, 2018 at 4:30 PM

The papers conclusions refute the claims of alarmists like you that the Arctic ice retreat from 1980 – 2005 was driven by CO2 and would be gone in summer by 2013/14/15/16/17 .
.
And I believe its projection of stable to increasing Arctic sea ice for a decade drives you into fits of desperation .

classicalmusiclover
January 6, 2018 at 4:36 PM

So, Yeager claims that AGW has no relation to long-term trends?

The paper doesn’t claim “increasing Arctic sea ice.” It claims sufficient increase in just the Atlantic sector to slow the rate of decrease overall.

This is obvious to anyone who isn’t science-illiterate and reading-comprehension challenged.

socalpa
January 6, 2018 at 4:51 PM

No , that is your interpretation as a lying ,science illiterate. ..Hysterical over the projection of increasing Arctic ice extent .
.
And desperate to deny the evidence it is already increasing ..
.
Watching your panicky handwaving and made up conclusions is music to my eyes .
.
Arctic sea ice at 2017 Sept Minima was 1 million sq kms greater than 2012 / 500k sq kms greater than 2007 .
.
Enjoyed your noise .

LTJ
January 6, 2018 at 4:40 AM

Nice link. Did you actually read it? This is how it ends:

“Ultimately, the rise of global temperatures will generate a loss of sea
ice cover over the coming century. This study is a stepping-stone toward
the ultimate goal of decadal climate prediction, which is vital to
understanding and anticipating the short-term trends and changes that
communities will be tackling in the near future.”

socalpa
January 6, 2018 at 4:53 AM

Yes I did , and its projection seems pretty accurate since Arctic sea ice did not disappear by summer 2013/14/15/16/17 as the CO2 as primary driver of Arctic sea ice retreat predicted .
.
In fact , the 2017 Sept Minima was 1 million sq kms greater than 2012 ,and 500,000 sq kms greater than 2007 per the NSIDC
I see you found the speculation in the paper and pounced !
.
Ultimately = someday =Speculation

LTJ
January 6, 2018 at 2:01 PM

So you read it, but did not understand it, it seems.

The article discusses winter sea ice cover. It does not discuss total ice mass (thickness), it discusses the extent to which the ocean surface freezes over. A body of water which is open all summer can still freeze over each winter – achieving 100% ice cover.

And this theory of theirs regarding the influence of thermohaline circulation is far more speculative at this point than the theory of AGW, for which there is decades of scientific consensus.

A consensus which these authors in no way, shape or form dispute, BTW.

socalpa
January 6, 2018 at 2:46 PM

On the contrary ,I understood the conclusions quite well ,and how they were arrived at .
.
You obviously do not ,or, pretend not to .
.
More winter sea ice ,resulting from less warm water transported into Arctic circulation also means thicker ,longer lasting ice .
.
Which is exactly what the data is showing, as I pointed out .
.
Ocean current (AMO,AMOC) is not “their theory” . Their use of historical data in their models included the observed increases in Arctic sea ice extent observed in the prior AMO AMOC negative phase . increase after 1953 , with 2-3 million sq km higher peak in 1968 ..
.
Another 10 years of increase in Arctic sea ice extent and attribution to cyclic ocean current phases is a PR disaster for the Alarmist narrative . Which has maintained for a decade the claim the Arctic ice free summer was imminent due to CO2 .
.
So ,like the NASA team leader that concluded Antarctica was gaining in mass ,reducing SLR ..
.
The author felt he needed to declare his team loyalty was with the AGW camp .
.
Not surprising ,considering the attacks on scientists that publish anything viewed as contradictory to the CO2 as primary climate driver narrative ..

LTJ
January 6, 2018 at 6:15 PM

“On the contrary ,I understood the conclusions quite well ,and how they were arrived at.”

You either misunderstood entirely or you are being completely disingenous in your denial.

Please do show us where you found that conclusion in the article or their paper. It isn’t there – and what you believe is not the topic here.

socalpa
January 6, 2018 at 7:04 PM

Do you doubt that more and thicker winter Arctic sea ice would result from less heat transport into Arctic circulation ? Do you propose less heat in Arctic circulation will produce thinner Arctic ice cover ?
.
The data shows more ice remaining at Sept Minima since 2007 ( currently 500ksq kms more), and 1 million sq kms after 2012 .
.
While not directly stated in the paper , it is an obvious inference .
.
And ,what did I “deny” ?

LTJ
January 6, 2018 at 11:54 PM

You denied the truth – the whole truth of the report you cited. You cannot simply cherry-pick the small fraction that fits into your conspiracy theory.

“The author felt he needed to declare his team loyalty was with the AGW camp.”

Utter drivel.

socalpa
January 7, 2018 at 3:17 AM

Oh ? Let’s continue .
.
The “small fraction” meaning the conclusions ;
.
a) The observed retreat 1980 -2005 of Arctic sea ice was primarily driven by the AMOC ocean current bringing warmer water into the Arctic circulation and not ghgs . ?
.
b) That Arctic winter sea ice extent went “positive” (increasing from 2005 -2015 and is projected to continue stable to increasing for the next decade as the AMOC phase reduces the flow of warmer water into Arctic circulation ?
.
Since this directly contradicts the claims of continuous Decline in Arctic ice due to CO2 ..
.
They would seem ….pretty ..big.. cherries . .

LTJ
January 7, 2018 at 10:50 AM

I’m not sure it makes sense to continue, when you continue to ignore every point anyone’s made here.

I am not confusing anything ,you are .
.
You ignore the primary points .
.
Arctic retreat observed not driven by GHGs as claimed but was ocean current (naturally driven).
.
Arctic winter ice extent ended 2005 and went positive as AMOC declined .
.
Arctic ice extent at Sept Minimas is a result .
.
I understand ,you are in shock at the implications .A decade of increasing Arctic ice extent is a PR disaster for the Alarmists who claimed the Arctic would be ice free in summer 2013/14/15/16/17 .The determination observed retreat was a natural cyclic event even more devastating .
.
I have seen this reaction before . Coming after NASA showed Antarctica was increasing not only in sea ice area for decades ,but in continental (land ice) as well .reducing ,not contributing ,to sea level rise .
.
Come back when you can form a cogent argument ,

This is pointless, as there are no “primary points” (and certainly no facts) to be found here. There is only your love for your own voice and the Dunning-Kruger effect on display.

socalpa
January 7, 2018 at 9:21 PM

I believe readers can decide who made unsubstantiated claims and formed a cogent argument . This was very clearly …. not ….you .
.
So as a parting shot .
.
What was the dominant driver of observed Arctic ice retreat as concluded by Yeager .
.
a) CO2 ?
.
b) AMOC ?
.
Next ;
.
What was the sign of Arctic sea ice extent reported by Yeager 2005 -2015 and projected a decade out .
.
c) positive ?
.
D) negative ?
..
For extra credit;
Was the Arctic sea ice extent at Sept 2017 .
.
e) greater than 2007 and 2012 ?
.
f) less than 2007 and 2012 .?

LTJ
January 7, 2018 at 10:02 PM

The same meaningless nonsense over and over again. As my parting shot: prove that you understand the difference between annual ice volume and seasonal winter ice cover and people may stop thinking you’re a waste of pixels.

The problem with your equation is that the arctic is not experiencing less warm at all.

When arctic air is constantly flowing out over North America causing record low temperatures, what air do you think is flowing into the arctic?

classicalmusiclover
January 7, 2018 at 10:23 PM

Tell us, o Great Socalpa:

1. What is the title of the Yeager et al. paper?
2. Quote for us the first sentence.

socalpa
January 7, 2018 at 11:45 PM

1. Albert Gore was full of sh*t .
.
2 The musiclover is also full of sh*t .

classicalmusiclover
January 8, 2018 at 6:31 AM

So, in your desperately lying response to these two simple questions, you admit that you cannot bring yourself to answer them.

Could it be because answering these two simple questions would blow your claims about this paper out of the water?

DM
January 8, 2018 at 4:51 PM

Ahh. . . but the age-old question: Which is fuller?

classicalmusiclover
January 6, 2018 at 3:43 PM

Projections based on physics are not mere speculation.

Arctic sea ice extent in December 2017 was below average in both the far northern Atlantic and the Bering Sea, and notably high temperatures prevailed over most of the Arctic, especially over Central Alaska.

Arctic sea ice at the 2017 Sept Minima was well below average for the satellite record.

And while the US East coast is experiencing a deep two-week cold snap, the Arctic is significantly warmer than normal. Arctic sea ice extent in December 2017 was below average in both the far northern Atlantic and the Bering Sea, and notably high temperatures prevailed over most of the Arctic, especially over Central Alaska.

Your claims of a long-term trend of growing, thickening Arctic sea ice is severely undermined by record low ice extents occurring during 2017 and much lower than average ice extents even in the winter.

Apparently you think that “Yeager got the physics right” but got his interpretation, context and general framework wrong.

Do you think that is because he is a) incompetent, b) a schemer, c) the editors of the journal misrepresented the paper?

socalpa
January 6, 2018 at 4:26 PM

I think that his conclusions have provoked a state of hysteria I you ..

socalpa
December 12, 2017 at 4:56 PM

It seems a little ridiculous that Sols’ role in climate change has been so greatly ignored . More than ridiculous , really makes one suspicious of the motives of those that seek to downplay the source of 99.99% of energy to the Earths atmosphere and oceans .
.
The source that along with water vapor melted back mile thick icesheets across about 1/3 of the northern hemisphere and about 1/4 of the southern hemisphere thousands of years before any significant rise in CO2 .. and each season today , causes a 100F temp range to occur in the mid and north latitudes .
.
The effects of low solar activity (Solar Grand Minima) show long cooling periods occurring as a result . Such the Little Ice Age which began with the Wolf Minima and ended with the Dalton after reaching the lowest temps of the Holocene during the Maunder Minimum 1650 -1715 .
.
In fact ,we may be seeing the onset of one now as the warming effects of the highest solar activity in over a century in cycles 1960-1990s fades .warming recently explained by the thermal inertia of the oceans as well oscillations of the major currents redistributing heat from prior ,higher solar cycles .

John Galt
December 19, 2017 at 11:19 AM

When CERN gets involved with cloud chamber experiments following previous work by a Danish scientist, it is time to seriously incorporate the findings into previous climate change hypotheses. CERN now claims cosmic radiation played a roll in creating greater cloud cover prior to the industrial revolution….and that affected earth’s temperature and climate in obvious ways.

Robert
December 28, 2017 at 1:38 PM

Both chapter 8 of AR5 and the SPM discuss the Sun’s role in changing Earth”s temperature. Neither support your intro paragraph rhetoric.

What we do have here is an effort to give a portion of the public some ‘feel goods’ for not accepting their role, their responsibility, in what nearly two centuries of research has been showing:

WHAT WE KNOW
THE REALITY, RISKS, AND RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE
The overwhelming evidence of human-caused climate change documents both current impacts with significant costs and extraordinary future risks to society and natural systems. The scientific community has convened conferences, published reports, spoken out at forums and proclaimed, through statements by virtually every national scientific academy and relevant major scientific organization — including the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) — that climate change puts the well-being of people of all nations at risk. http://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/

Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes (see Figure SPM.6 and Table SPM.1). This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {10.3–10.6, 10.9}

• It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period. {10.3}

• Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5°C to 1.3°C over the period 1951 to 2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings, including the cooling effect of aerosols, likely to be in the range of −0.6°C to 0.1°C. The contribution from natural forcings is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C, and from natural internal variability is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C. Together these assessed contributions are consistent with the observed warming of approximately 0.6°C to 0.7°C over this period. {10.3}

• Over every continental region except Antarctica, anthropogenic forcings have likely made a substantial contribution to surface temperature increases since the mid-20th century (see Figure SPM.6). For Antarctica, large observational uncertainties result in low confidence that anthropogenic forcings have contributed to the observed warming averaged over available stations. It is likely that there has been an anthropogenic contribution to the very substantial Arctic warming since the mid-20th century. {2.4, 10.3}

• It is very likely that anthropogenic influence, particularly greenhouse gases and stratospheric ozone depletion, has led to a detectable observed pattern of tropospheric warming and a corresponding cooling in the lower stratosphere since 1961. {2.4, 9.4, 10.3}

• It is very likely that anthropogenic forcings have made a substantial contribution to increases in global upper ocean heat content (0–700 m) observed since the 1970s (see Figure SPM.6). There is evidence for human influence in some individual ocean basins. {3.2, 10.4}

• It is likely that anthropogenic influences have affected the global water cycle since 1960. Anthropogenic influences have contributed to observed increases in atmospheric moisture content in the atmosphere (medium confidence), to global scale changes in precipitation patterns over land (medium confidence), to intensification of heavy precipitation over land regions where data are sufficient (medium confidence), and to changes in surface and sub-surface ocean salinity (very likely). {2.5, 2.6, 3.3, 7.6, 10.3, 10.4}
SPM WG1 AR5

socalpa
January 6, 2018 at 8:02 PM

Same old Robert , Same old Spam .

Grumnut1
January 8, 2018 at 8:37 AM

This is the best bit:
” The extensive comments are what is called post publication peer review in the journal world.”
I never knew that.